the beauty of joseph trying to do a kickstarter to essentially restart development on a 'spiritual' successor to wave is actually wave could still stay in asf, as a legacy fallback option.
i feel like joseph manning up and really trying to set some real focus to his own coding goals will be a win-win for everybody. the real question is whats the best way to support the coders. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> wrote: > In defence of the team, it always takes awhile to figure out what the > best way to modularize a software project is when you're implementing > a new idea. The right abstractions always seem obvious in retrospect, > but until you've thought about it a lot its not obvious at all. For > example, moving from apache+cgi_bin -> apache+mod_php -> python+wsgi / > ruby+rack -> ruby+sinatra / nodejs took _years_ of iteration. > > -J > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Assuming the protocol still maintains waves ability's; > > *open > > *federated > > *selective sharing (that is, sharing X with just a few people) > > *realtime > > Wave should be the name given to the server to server protocol, imho, but > > not much else. > > Google made the mistake of calling everything wave. The server to server > > protocol, the client and the conversation thread in the client. That was > > just silly really. > > > > Ideally anything developed should maintain server to server compatibility > > with Apaches. But, at this point, if this project takes off better then > it > > would be upto Apache's java server to adapt to this ones. > > > > > > ~~~ > > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > > > > > On 2 December 2013 20:30, Patrick Coleman <patcole...@google.com> wrote: > > > >> The proposal seems to include rewriting the OT stack, changing the > >> language(s) the client and server are written in, and moving to github. > >> If this is the case, is there any point in still being called Wave? > >> > >> It sounds like not much will be able to be transferred other than > >> knowledge, > >> so is there any reason to not just create a kickstarter for GentleWare > (or > >> whatever you want to call it :p)? > >> I guess it is still a wave-y project, but this is kind of like the > >> Theseus's paradox of project naming. > >> > >> (although I'm not that familiar with licensing concerns, so maybe > there's > >> part of the federation protocol or the OT spec which > >> can only be used by 'Wave' in which case it makes sense). > >> >
